A project fellow engaged on a temporary stipend basis for a specific project duration is not considered an employee under the Maternity Benefit Act and is therefore ineligible for statutory maternity benefits where the institution also does not fall under the definition of a commercial establishment.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna S., J.

Respondents 2 and 4 in W.P.(C)No.18148 of 2025 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 13.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. The 1^st respondent-writ petitioner was appointed as Project Fellow I under the 2^nd appellant, Sophisticated Test and Instrumentation Centre (‘STIC’ for short), Cochin University Campus, Kochi, for a period of one year as per Ext.P1 appointment order dated 04.07.2022. According to the 1^st respondent, she was appointed temporarily with a monthly stipend of Rs. 22,000/-. On completion of the 1^st contractual period, her tenure was extended for a further period of one year as per Ext.P2 letter of extension dated 05.07.2023, with effect from 06.07.2023. Again, the period of contract was extended for one more year with effect from 08.07.2024 as per Ext.P3 letter dated 06.07.2024 issued by the 2^nd appellant herein-4^th respondent. On completion of each year of appointment and extension, the 1^st respondent was issued with experience certificates, which were marked as Exts.P4 and P4(a) in the writ petition.

2.1. The 1^st respondent pleads that, on 05.03.2025, during her 8^th month of pregnancy, she made a request to the 2^nd appellant for the grant of statutory maternity leave as per Ext.P6 representation. Since Ext.P6 representation was not responded, the 1^st respondent sent Ext.P7 email dated 03.04.2025 with her medical certificates to the 2^nd appellant and availed leave from 03.04.2025 onwards. In reply to Ext.P7 email, the 1^st respondent received Ext.P8 reply email sent by the 2^nd appellant, rejecting her request for maternity leave, stating the reason that her appointment is merely temporary. Aggrieved by the refusal to grant maternity leave, the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner submitted Ext.P9 representation, via email on 04.04.2025, to the Vice Chancellor of the University. Though she received Ext.P10 reply email dated 08.04.2025 from the Personal Secretary of the Vice Chancellor stating that the matter has been taken up and informed the concerned section for necessary action, no response was followed. Therefore, the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs;

“1. Call for the records connected with the case

2. Issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ, order or direction to quash Ext P8 communication issued by the 4^th respondents as it is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the letter and spirit of the Maternity Benefits Act;

3. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to grant the petitioner benefits under the Maternity Benefits Act 1961, including leave and all monetary benefits she would have otherwise been entitled to, till the expiry of her maternity leave in September 2025;

4. Direct the respondents to continue deduction of PF contribution till the expiry of her maternity leave in September 2025 and grant the petitioner the total accumulated value in the PF account at the end of her tenure, along with the relevant certificate of subscription;

5. Direct the respondents to grant the petitioner one year experience certificate for the last year of her employment from 06.07.2024;

6. Impose cost on the respondents and initiate appropriate proceedings under Section 21 of the Maternity Benefits Act against the 4^th respondent Director for denial of maternity